Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

typoon · Oct 17, 2002, 12:00 PM

Macworld Expo moves to Boston; Apple will not go
by Jim Dalrymple, [email protected]
October 17, 2002 10:30 am ET

"IDG World Expo on Thursday officially moved Macworld Conference & Expo back to Boston, leaving New York, where the show spent the last several years. While business leaders in Boston are happy with the change, a statement given to MacCentral today from Apple said the company would not participate in the show.

Apple also said they would re-evaluate their plans for the New York Expo next summer, the last to be held in New York, but reaffirmed their commitment to the San Francisco Expo.

"Today IDG announced plans to move Macworld New York to Boston in July of 2004. Apple disagrees with this decision, and will not be participating in Macworld Boston," Apple said in a statement to MacCentral. "Since IDG is no longer investing in New York, we now need to re-evaluate our participation in Macworld New York 2003. Apple will continue to participate in Macworld San Francisco in January."

This kind of defeats the purpose of having it if Apple isn't going to be there doesn't it? Especially one of that size on the east coast.

macvillage.net · Oct 17, 2002, 12:11 PM

Should keep it in NYC, if anything move to Phili (NYC is a better city IMHO).

Why? Boston is to far north. NYC is accessible to people from Boston, as well as NY, NJ, PA, even further south could make a reasonible journey.

NYC is the best middle ground for the east coast.

scottiB · Oct 17, 2002, 12:19 PM

Didn't anyone at IDG get Apple's input on the move? I realize that IDG is the promoter, but it's like moving The Stones from venue to another without asking them if they wanted to play there.

keekeeree · Oct 17, 2002, 12:22 PM

Screw NY, Boston, and San Fran! Just move both Expos to Minneapolis!

Anyone second the motion?

arrested502 · Oct 17, 2002, 12:23 PM

I gotta agree with macvillage.net here also. NYC is the biggest east coast city and it is still quite accessable to even people from the Boston area. I know that MacWorld isn't just about Apple products alone, but it's got to be the biggest reason anyone attends or watches it. I wouldn't think they'd have such a big turn-out if Apple wasn't taking part in it.

typoon · Oct 17, 2002, 12:37 PM

I know they did it for costs, I was hoping NYC would have been able to work something out with them. That's just Lost revenue for NY. I guess we will need to wait and see if the issue with Apple not going can be worked out with IDG.

I guess I'm going to be drivin my cah to Boston for the show even if Apple isn't there Unless Apple does something on there own then I'm there.

macvillage.net · Oct 17, 2002, 01:11 PM

Apple should be in the Big Apple. Just for the slogan it should be in NYC.

NYC is the biggest
NYC is the most convient

if you live in the North East, NYC is the center

New England - few ours down
NY - your there
PA - three hour drive from Phili (if you know the tricks to keep out of traffic)
NJ - an hour or two for most
VA,DE,Md,DC - a few hours away, but still possibly for a road trip.

The entire North East is a roadtrip away from NYC.

Boston is about 5-6 hrs (depending on traffic from me, and I'm considered to be in the middle of it all (the midpoint between NY, and Phili)....

I know I have a NYC bias. But it's beside the point. It's about accessibility. Not the city itself.

NYC is the easiest to get to for a vast majority of people.

For people coming in from outside the area, there is more to do in NYC than Boston anyway...

Must admit, now that baseball is over (I'm a Yankee Fan) Boston is a nice place to visit. It really is a nice (kind of small) town. It's not that I hate Boston, I just hate the Red Sox

NYC is just the easiest place.

calamar1 · Oct 17, 2002, 01:15 PM

Clearly from my address field, i am biased, but it's worth noting that if indeed this is true (and bear in mind, there's a good chance they could be holding out for something), it's not necessarily due to the move. The article did say that they're considering pulling out of the last one in New York, as well.

What i think is more likely is that IDG wangled all kinds of swell Free Stuff from the city, and that Apple wants in on it before they come and play.

As for the location, i don't know what percentage of attendees are local to begin with, but sure, it's a smaller area. That said, the move was made due to the needs of exhibitors, not people. Since Adobe and Macromedia continued to bag on New York, specifically citing costs, IDG needed to do something about it, and they did. They say it will be roughly 35% cheaper to exhibit in Boston. That's a pretty sizable chunk of change.

And since Apple knows that the success of the expo rides on its presence, they're going to hold out for some concessions. Dirty pool, i'd say, but there's a good chance that's all it is. Boston is just a half-hour extra plane ride, and a short drive. And it's usually 5-10 degrees cooler.

When i was in NYC this summer, it didn't seem to me that the expo got any public, city-wide, non-attendee attention at all (something which is, incidentally, built into the deal for the show in Boston).

i personally think that 1.5 years from now, Steve'll be there. Now, i'm going to write [email protected] and offer to buy him a beer if he does...

CaseCom · Oct 17, 2002, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by keekeeree:
Screw NY, Boston, and San Fran! Just move both Expos to Minneapolis!

Anyone second the motion?

Second!

Seriously, I can't figure this out. I can't believe IDG would be so stupid as to do this without asking Apple, or, alternatively, knowing Apple was opposed. Maybe this is some kind of dispute over the financial deal and Apple is playing hardball?

file · Oct 17, 2002, 01:19 PM

NYC = Capital of the world

(in many people's minds)

not the same if you move it anywhere else, not withstanding home town SF

iCol · Oct 17, 2002, 01:25 PM

They should move it to the Little Apple!

I would love that

Col

Millennium · Oct 17, 2002, 01:38 PM

This is not a smart move on Apple's part. The MacWorld Expos have always been some prime spots for its technologies, and they ignore them at their own peril.

I go back and forth on the Philadelphia idea. Certainly it's easier to access for most of the country. But if you think about it, there are three major technological centers in the US, as far as computing goes: Silicon Valley (California), the Dulles Corridor (Washington, DC), and Boston (their center probably has a name but I don't know what it is). NY is big for business in general, but it isn't as much of a technological center as one might think.

Boston may be better just from a technological standpoint. Philly's more convenient for the populace in general, but it's the companies which make the real impact.

Regardless, for Apple not to go is just plain stupid on their part.

mahoney2 · Oct 17, 2002, 02:18 PM

I believe you are refering to Cambridge. I think this is a good move because there are also over 20 college in Boston alone. Education sales every year are huge.

mchladek · Oct 17, 2002, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by keekeeree:
Screw NY, Boston, and San Fran! Just move both Expos to Minneapolis!

Anyone second the motion?

Sounds good to me. Or even better, how about St. Louis or Kansas City

CaseCom · Oct 17, 2002, 02:19 PM

From Cnet:

Following Apple's statement, an IDG World Expo representative said the company had no indication from Apple that the Mac maker would pull out of the show if it was moved to Boston.

"Apple remains an important partner for Macworld and IDG World Expo has been in discussions with Apple officials for some time about the move back to Boston," the representative said. "Since we just heard of Apple's position, we can only speculate about their reasons, which may be driven by their financial situation."

Justin W. Williams · Oct 17, 2002, 02:36 PM

Why not somewhere like Atlanta?

PseuFighter · Oct 17, 2002, 02:59 PM

It's interesting. When Boston originally lost Macworld to New York City, the foundation was taking form for the new South Boston Convention Center. Years ago, I made the prediction Macworld would return to Boston pending the completion of the new convention center. And here we are today, where the official announcement has been made proclaiming the mother of all Macintosh trade shows [on the east coast] is now officially set to make a triumphant return to Boston. There's a catch -- No Apple at this Macintosh convention.

Think Macworld's REALLY coming Boston? Don't put your dollars on it so quickly. Even though it's been "officially" announced, if the REAL reasoning on Apple's part is that they're in some reason disgusted with the Boston selection over New York City, and it's not a financial dilemma, mark my word -- Macworld 2004 will be right where it was this past year and right where it will be next year.

A Macworld without exhibitors is like a formatted hard drive. It's simply empty. A Macworld without Apple renegs on any new hardware and software from our Cuptertino amigos.

I have a feeling Boston is being used as an IDG business tool right now. If Macworld produces so much for New York's economy, the Javits Center WILL eventually help IDG settle back in New York and Apple will return.

It's a shame because Macworld in Boston would be so great for the city, and a fine opportunity to showcase the new convention center on the remodeled waterfront property in "Southie". Not that I'm biased because I live in Boston, but I don't mind either way -- I've made the journey to New York for the last two Macworld [mind you, this past show was a virtual expo ghost town], and will hopefully be in a fine university in the city of New York while Macworld '04 commences. That's class during the summer, kids.

If this is now becoming a political game, it's very unfair to Boston, who's putting out all the bells and whistles for the show's return. They've gone as far as putting in millions of dollars, and coming up with the public transportation and appropriate hotel space in ample time.

Too bad I didn't know more about the "official" announcement in Boston's North End. I'm there virtually everyday at lunch :/

There's plenty more to read at Boston.com on the whole situation.

InterfaceGuy · Oct 17, 2002, 03:00 PM

This is a nightmare! If Apple isn't going to Macworld in July anymore, how will we ever know when new hardware will come out? It'll be and endless wait for the next new products. Or maybe they'll just announce updates at Macworld in San Fran and Paris.

PseuFighter · Oct 17, 2002, 03:06 PM

If Apple ducks out, will more third party companies do the same?

Think about it... Apple brings in the media. Other companies can reach out to the media in that forum. Apple brings in the attendees. Other companies will have fewer people at their booths. With space as expensive as it is, why should struggling companies even bother.

I mean who does Apple think they are -- Adobe? Macromedia?

A complete bail out will inevitably set back Macworld to one expo per year -- San Fran.

file · Oct 17, 2002, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by InterfaceGuy:
This is a nightmare! If Apple isn't going to Macworld in July anymore, how will we ever know when new hardware will come out? It'll be and endless wait for the next new products. Or maybe they'll just announce updates at Macworld in San Fran and Paris.

thats the whole point

they want you to buy a new mac when you need it

they dont want you to wait twixe a year

also, it sucks for them when we rumor monger every macworld. then we get all disappointed when nothing comes of it.

PseuFighter · Oct 17, 2002, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by file:

thats the whole point

they want you to buy a new mac when you need it

they dont want you to wait twixe a year

hrmm... if that's true, why bother participating in the following:

� WWDC
� Apple Expo
� Macworld Tokyo
�_Seybold Seminars

your logic doesn't work. sorry.

G4ME · Oct 17, 2002, 03:31 PM

OH Fu@k me up the a$$ just when I had the option ot only travle 3 hours to go to a Macworld it seems that there wont be a clear reason for me to go.

Does anyone know of the reason they gave for not attending the Boston Show, I mean cammon we all know that apple was trying to pull away from announcing new hardware at MWs but still they have to at least be there and show us whats new with OS X and why we should but the new "." update for a hundred bucks I am seriously pissed off thanks a lot

scottiB · Oct 17, 2002, 04:03 PM

Following Apple's statement, an IDG World Expo representative said the company had no indication from Apple that the Mac maker would pull out of the show if it was moved to Boston.

I find that hard to believe. It only makes sense if IDG never asked for a commitment from Apple--in writing--which the company should have (and if Apple declined, then that tells you something). If IDG was working on the presumption that Apple would always attend MacWorld Expos, the onus for this tempest in a tea-party falls onto them. If I were Greco (IDG's CEO), I'd begin to ask for contractual appearance commitments from Apple for all MacWorlds from now on--which should've been standard operating procedure all along.

IDG asked Boston for many, many concessions and perks to swing this deal (free rent for two years, free advertising, etc.)--with that IDG commited to three years. Why would you make that agreement if you couldn't guarantee Apple would attend?

Apple is making a grade-A PR mistake in doing this, alienating a huge user base, and pissing off the city of Boston. The blame, though, goes to Greco and IDG for not having their ducks in a row (as I throw cliches metaphors all over the place--there I did it again.).

flatcatch · Oct 17, 2002, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by scottiB:
Apple is making a grade-A PR mistake in doing this, alienating a huge user base

Oh man... if I had a dollar for every time I've heard an Apple user say that over the past 15 years....

I think this sort of thing is in Apple's Constitution. Somewhere around "make cool hardware" it says "... and do wacky **** that makes no sense"

fulmer · Oct 17, 2002, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Justin W. Williams:
Why not somewhere like Atlanta?

because atlanta sucks. their airport is TERRIBLE, and getting around the city is a pain in the butt. you can ride the marta buses (which are slow and have rougher passengers than in DC's chinatown), take a cab, or drive your car and risk carjacking or theft.

you all getting the impression that I don't like atlanta?

scottiB · 05:19 PM

From:

http://digitalmass.boston.com/news/2...macworld2.html

Jim Rooney, director of construction for the new convention center that landed Macworld 2004 as its first tenant, said he still expects the show to go on.

"The Massachusetts Convention Center Authority has dealt in good faith with a reputable $3 billion company in IDG World Expo," said Rooney in a statement.

"Today's disclosure regarding a disagreement with Apple Computer is surprising. We expect that IDG World Expo will deliver the Macworld package as promised and as represented in negotiations."

IDG is in a bit of trouble here.

G4ME · Oct 17, 2002, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by fulmer:

because atlanta sucks. their airport is TERRIBLE, and getting around the city is a pain in the butt. you can ride the marta buses (which are slow and have rougher passengers than in DC's chinatown), take a cab, or drive your car and risk carjacking or theft.

you all getting the impression that I don't like atlanta?

also isn't atlanta owned by Ted Turner and AOL so who wants to mess with them

olePigeon · Oct 17, 2002, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by scottiB:
From:

http://digitalmass.boston.com/news/2...macworld2.html

IDG is in a bit of trouble here.

Uh oh. Looks like IDG promised Macworld with an Apple under the ussumption the Apple would go with it.

Maybe they can do 4 Macworlds and Apple can drop out of Seybold or COMDEX. Although one in Boston AND in NY seems unfair for people in the midwestern states.

juanvaldes · Oct 17, 2002, 06:40 PM

What if they are just taking the opportunity to get out of the macworld announcement pattern? No Macworld, no reason to hold onto that next killer product a extra month for the show, or release something before they are truly ready to ship. (iMac anyone?)

macvillage.net · Oct 17, 2002, 07:07 PM

Boston just won't get the attendence needed to make it work, compaired to other cities. Boston only appeals to New Englanders.

Apple can't afford a show with a low key presence. It makes them look like real has-beens.

that is why they are backing out.

Jobs likes to put on a show. A big show. A long show.

If I were them:

NYC
Phili

and I would add low key shows on off months at:

Atlanta
St. Louis

(for those low key releases done on off expo times, such as upgraded models etc.)

Why? Those regions could use a show. Good for small Mac businesses in the area. Good for people living in the area who use Macs.

Justin W. Williams · Oct 17, 2002, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by olePigeon:

Uh oh. Looks like IDG promised Macworld with an Apple under the ussumption the Apple would go with it.

[homersimpson]doh![/homersimpson]

RGB · Oct 17, 2002, 09:16 PM

I have to wonder... why not Chicago?

It's centrally located in the country.
Has two big airports.
McCormic Place has the largest convention floor in the country

and the list goes on...

beb · Oct 17, 2002, 09:37 PM

Why does the east coast Macworld show even matter anymore? Why not just have a Macworld San Francisco and let that be it.

Heck, Apple attended a Linux expo, why not go for broke and attend a Comdex or CES show?

PorscheBunny · Oct 19, 2002, 03:56 AM

Originally posted by iCol:
They should move it to the Little Apple!

I would love that

Col

Why would anyone voluntarily go to Manhattan Kansas?!?!

Vanquish · Oct 19, 2002, 05:35 AM

Apple without the Big Apple ? no way

And apple not coming to boston --> STUPID

suprz · Oct 19, 2002, 07:43 AM

i wish they would have it in boston and not NY (i personally do not like NY) and it's not because i like the east coast or mass. i'm originally from california and i would rather be able to go to SF macworld . but how can they negotiate a contract without having a agreement with apple that they would attend? after all it is the company that the whole expo is named after

if apple doesnt attend i doubt that i would even go. and i dont live that far away

scottiB · Oct 19, 2002, 09:40 AM

For some reason, I'm all intrigued by the, uh, intrigue around this:

From today's Boston Globe:

Greco said he became convinced Apple was looking for a way out when he met with Jobs in California about three months ago. ''He was very concerned at that time. He put both his hands to his head, and he said ... `I really don't know if we can handle two shows anymore in the US.'''

Part of the problem, Greco said, was the pressure of having to announce some spectacular new product at each show. After a spate of flashy new products like the iMac computer and the iPod music player, Jobs felt the need to dazzle the audience at every show. But Greco said that Jobs was feeling the strain.

So, Greco, knowing this, proceeds to negotiate a deal with Boston without having a written commitment from the mothership?(!)

Other industry-watchers said that Greco himself may be the problem. ''Charlie is not a loved man in the trade-show business,'' said Russ Walker, former director of sales for several IDG World Expo trade shows, including LinuxWorld. Walker said Greco often clashed with Apple executives, and that Apple had set up smaller trade shows in Europe under its own control because it hoped to wean itself from IDG World Expo.

''They just don't like Charlie,'' he said.

More intrigue!

CaseCom · Oct 19, 2002, 03:58 PM

Yeah that Globe story was interesting. I would never have believed it before, but now I can see Apple completely severing its ties to IDG/Macworld.